Hall of Fame debate: Staff picks for the 2016 ballot

Monday is the deadline for the BBWAA to submit their votes for this year's Hall of Fame class, and, like most ballots in the post-steroid era, it's crowded with controversy and debate.

There's still a limit on players per ballot (10), the 75 percent threshold for support remains in effect, and the committee reduced the numbers of years a player can stay on the ballot from 15 to 10. All that is to say it will be another much-discussed vote when the ballots are revealed Jan. 6.

The differing of opinions is even apparent here, where our editors each submitted a limitless ballot. Each ballot seems to represent the arguments at the forefront of the Cooperstown debate; some were pro-closers, some supported alleged steroid users, and others backed underrated candidates. Here are our five ballots for the Hall of Fame Class of 2016:

Ballot 1: Pro-Closers

Brandon Wile: Only five relievers find themselves in the Hall of Fame, though two more should be added in 2016. While Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner didn't amass the workload of their predecessors, their resumes are arguably more dominant. Both Hoffman and Wagner own a better WHIP and K/9 than their brethren, while sitting second and fifth in career saves, respectively. Wagner also owns the top ERA+ among the seven, with Hoffman owning the third-best mark. Though the switch to the one-inning save has benefited Hoffman and Wagner, they were still the most dominant players at their position. As the game and roles continue to evolve, these two should be considered for their dominance at an important position.

Ballot 2: Pro-talent

Jonah Birenbaum: With all due respect to Wagner and Hoffman, there are simply too many holdovers with far more impressive resumes - who remain personae non gratae in Cooperstown due to their connections, dubious or otherwise, to performance-enhancing drugs - to give either reliever serious consideration. The debate over whether to induct suspected steroid users won't be resolved anytime soon, but due to the fact that: A) the Hall of Fame is a museum celebrating baseball's historically exceptional players, and B) none of the aforementioned players were ever suspended for failing an MLB drug test, keeping players like Bonds and Clemens out of Cooperstown seems like a self-serving attempt by the voters to diffuse responsibility for their role in baseball's erstwhile drug epidemic.

Ballot 3: Pro-Crime Dog

Greg Warren: Fred McGriff is on the ballot for a seventh time after garnering only 12.9 percent of the vote last year. One of the most feared hitters during baseball's steroid era, the "Crime Dog" fell just short of the illustrious 500-homer plateau (493), but would have cleared that hurdle if not for the 1994-95 player strike. The ballot is crowded, and that's a shame for McGriff, whose unique high-arcing swing from the left side was downright intimidating.

Ballot 4: Pro-Moose

Bryan Mcwilliam: Under the radar may be the best way to describe this Moose. Mike Mussina crafted a tremendously consistent career, and although he never did win a Cy Young Award, he received voter consideration on nine separate times, as well as MVP votes on three occasions. He arguably posted better career numbers than current Hall of Famers Catfish Hunter, Bob Lemon, and Burleigh Grimes, while pitching the latter half of his career in pressure-filled New York City.

Ballot 5: Pro-everyone

Dan Toman: There's only one way to alleviate the congestion on this ballot: let 'em all in. We can debate McGriff's 493 home runs or Martinez's DH-handicap all day, but there's a compelling argument to make that had there never been an arbitrary 10-player limit for each ballot, the election process would have never become watered down by arguments about the merits of one Hall of Famer's numbers against another's. How can one voter say Tom Glavine should be in but not Mike Mussina? Or Frank Thomas and not Jeff Bagwell? In a debate where statistics should trump all, we've let an arbitrary number skew our perception.